Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
U.S. Officials Begin Crafting Iran Bombing Plan  
User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2065 times:

Very interesting article here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296450,00.html

So in a nutshell, the Germans are blocking further sanctions aimed to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program, effectively ending any chance that the world has to solve the problem diplomatically. I say to all the Europeans on this forum, DO NOT complain when the United States bombs the Iranian nuclear facilities before President Bush leaves office.

Key points:
Germany — a pivotal player among three European nations to rein in Iran's nuclear program over the last two-and-a-half years through a mixture of diplomacy and sanctions supported by the United States — notified its allies last week that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel refuses to support the imposition of any further sanctions against Iran that could be imposed by the U.N. Security Council.

Political and military officers, as well as weapons of mass destruction specialists at the State Department, are now advising Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the diplomatic approach favored by Burns has failed and the administration must actively prepare for military intervention of some kind.

Consequently, according to a well-placed Bush administration source, "everyone in town" is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections.

The Bush administration "has just about had it with Iran," said one foreign diplomat. "They tried the diplomatic process. China is now obstructing them at the U.N. Security Council and the Russians are tucking themselves behind them.

"The Germans are wobbling …There are a number of people in the administration who do not want their legacy to be leaving behind an Iran that is nuclear armed, so they are looking at what are the alternatives? They are looking at other options," the diplomat said.

Vice President Cheney and his aides are said to be enjoying a bit of "schadenfreude" at the expense of Burns. A source described Cheney's office as effectively gloating to Burns and Rice, "We told you so. (The Iranians) are not containable diplomatically."

138 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2047 times:

Quoting RJpieces (Thread starter):
Political and military officers, as well as weapons of mass destruction specialists at the State Department, are now advising Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the diplomatic approach favored by Burns has failed and the administration must actively prepare for military intervention of some kind.

Iraq not enough then. Just don't expect that gasoline will be either cheap or even easy to buy if they do go for military intervention.

We have had this all before. It made no sense then, and it makes no sense now.


User currently offlineMBMBOS From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2612 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2025 times:

Quoting RJpieces (Thread starter):
...DO NOT complain when the United States bombs the Iranian nuclear facilities before President Bush leaves office.

So are you saying that the United States doesn't have to take responsibility for its actions? We can actually blame Germany if we attack Iran?

Are you kidding? What twisted and tortured form of logic did you use to come to that conclusion?


User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2016 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 1):
We have had this all before. It made no sense then, and it makes no sense now.

If the US decides once again to make a unilateral pre-emptive military strike in the Middle East -- this time against Iran -- it will be the final nail in the coffin of the Bush Administration's foriegn policy. The mess it will leave behind for the next US president will be huge, especially on top of the existing Iraq mess.

The main problem here, regardless of what is actually happening in Iran, is that Bush/Cheney credibility, on a scale of 1-to-10, is around minus 3. I don't believe anything they say any more, and I suspect that view is shared not only by the rest of the world, but by a majority of Americans as well. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineAjd1992 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2016 times:

Don't complain when they retaliate with nuclear bombs and blow your ass off the map. I'm not anti-US, or Anti-Iran, but one day somebody will give the US a bloody nose, i have a feeling it will be Iran with their crackpot leader and very powerful weapons.

User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11793 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1997 times:

Does Iran have nuclear weapons? Do they have the facilities to produce mass quantities of nuclear weapons? Have they threatened to use nuclear weapons agains any country? I know the leadership of Iran wants Isreal to go away, but do words give anyone the right to invade a soverign nation? I know all this falls on deaf ears. The administration decided a long time ago to invade Iran. This is their reason. Godspeed to us all.


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineSh0rtybr0wn From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 528 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 1976 times:

As an American,I dont think this is a good idea. Bombs are not the solution to every problem.

Bombing a country 3 times the size of Iraq will be difficult and expensive and kill many innocent people; and it will further destabilize the mid-east.....

And Then what? You can see from the Iraq experience how difficult it is to create a stable government once the previous one is destroyed.

Bombing another Islamic country will just create millions more people who hate America.

We need Diplomacy; not more "mission accomplished" and not more "shock and awe". And how did that "shock and awe" work-out anyway?
3774 dead.


User currently offlineME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13920 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 1970 times:

Quoting RJpieces (Thread starter):
to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program

there is no nuclear WEAPONS program in Iran. Iran, and this has recently been clairfied by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, only has a nuclear development program for civilian purposes, for the use of nuclear energy for infrastructure projects and industrial projects.
-

Quoting RJpieces (Thread starter):
ending any chance that the world has to solve the problem diplomatically

the "problem" just is that Iran is not respecting the guidelines of the IAEA in Vienna and is not ready as it should to allow inspections by the IAEA specialists.
-

Quoting Baroque (Reply 1):
don't expect

What they expect is that either their bombers simply can fly unhindered into Iran to do their "missions" or else that their cruise-missiles that time will be really on target.
-

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 2):
So are you saying that the United States doesn't have to take responsibility for its actions? We can actually blame Germany if we attack Iran?

-
This apparently is the new logic. Because Germany, Russia and China are against further sanctions and military intervention, any military adventure of the USA of course will be THEIR fault .
-


User currently offlineMham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3719 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 1948 times:

Lets ask this question. Diplomacy has NOT worked. Iran has thrown up numerous obstacles to proving they are only researching for nuclear energy. What would you do? Believe them at their word? Let them acquire the bomb? Change the balance of power in the middle east and further provoke a nuclear arms race? You tell me.

I heard a blurb yesterday from an unknown foriegn diplomat that last weeks foray by Israel into Israel was actually a bombing mission against weapon shipments from Iran through Syria to Hezbellah. The same diplomat said that weapon shipments from Iran to Afghanistan had positively been identified. I have not been able to track the source.


User currently offlineAirTranTUS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 1923 times:

At least they have a plan.

We could let them continue with whatever they are doing, and park a bunch of satellites over Iran to watch everything leaving the country. If something leaves, it can be "checked" by special forces in another country to make sure it contains nothing of danger. I imagine it could be easy to slip a weapon into an oil tanker and detonate it in a harbor. Maybe all oil tankers and other ships coming from Iran need to be stopped and searched before being allowed near the US. and if anything is ever found, Iran is screwed.


User currently offlineAsstChiefMark From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 1922 times:

Quoting Sh0rtybr0wn (Reply 6):
Bombs are not the solution to every problem.

Must be a Texas thing. First, Johnson, then Bush 41, now Bush Jr.


User currently offlineMBMBOS From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2612 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 1912 times:

Quoting Mham001 (Reply 8):
Diplomacy has NOT worked.

According to whom? According to the current adminstration that is famous for its great accomplishments in diplomacy?

Quoting Mham001 (Reply 8):
Believe them at their word?

No, I don't believe the Iranians.

Quoting Mham001 (Reply 8):
What would you do?

Gee, I didn't realize that we have an either/or choice here. This is often the rationale for justifying going to war. Limit choices, declare that diplomacy has failed, then commence with bombing.

Quoting Mham001 (Reply 8):
Change the balance of power in the middle east and further provoke a nuclear arms race?

Guess what? We've already done that by de-stablizing Iraq, a natural political counter-balance to Iran. The deed was set into motion by our actions.

Quoting Mham001 (Reply 8):
I have not been able to track the source.

This is typical. We are fed stories by "reliable sources" that cannot be revealed, but you can trust the information anyway because they have your best interest at heart.


User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 1911 times:

My initial fear filled thought is that this is a terribly bad idea. The US citizenry can not even decide to protect our own border , we are so divided we can not even decide if its right to protect are fu**ing border !. The liberals do not see past the next election , so looking into the future of the ME is way out of their range. It is not the liberals fault , not blaming them for everything but their view of the world IMHO is dangerously naive .

The US lacks clarity and leadership in a serious way ,, putting our military into a blurry situation again is IMHO a giant  redflag  at this point.

On the other hand ... their is no doubt in my mind that Iran is our enemy ... and a enemy of "freedom. The US is the only country left with the will and the power to oppose them at all.

The dawn of a new and very sinister future is upon us. A world where countries can threaten anyone with proxy terrorist militias and hold in check normal diplomacy and rule of law. Forget about WMD for a moment , the fact that the US is alone in opposing a rouge regime that threatens the very fiber of international law is very unfortunate. Germany , is in a very precarious situation indeed. They , like many others no doubt have the enemy within , and risk setting off a chain reaction of terror that is for all intents and purposes un defensible. Now if you enter the slight possibility that the proxy army could be someday armed with a plutonium dirty bomb...... be afraid be very afraid.

Quoting Ajd1992 (Reply 4):
Don't complain when they retaliate with nuclear bombs and blow your ass off the map

IMHO this is almost inevitable at this point,, With the growth of powerful economies around the world , basically it is a matter of time till our economy is not needed. That is happening now , it will take time but right now the world still needs us. Once the playing field is better balanced in our enemies favour (everyone except the UK..maybe) will feel a little more favourable to the idea of the US being gone. At this point no one will stand with us or Israel and we will be alone in our defence .... without allies we are naked to terror attacks.

So , what to do ???



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 1893 times:

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 12):
On the other hand ... their is no doubt in my mind that Iran is our enemy ... and a enemy of "freedom. The US is the only country left with the will and the power to oppose them at all.

Do you hear yourself ? "An enemy of freedom" - how so ? They have a loony president who makes a lot of empty gestures, so what ? The US has the same problem. This is just unadulterated paranoia with no basis in reality. Has Iran actually invaded anyone recently ? No. Did they launch the September 11 attacks against the US ? No. Do they have nuclear weapons ? No. Is Pakistan a dangerous miltary dictatorship hosting thousands of very dangerous Islamist radicals ? Yes. Does Pakistan have nuclear weapons ? Yes. Is the US planning to bomb Pakistan ? No.

It's irrational and baseless fear of the Iranian bogeyman that has hypnotised the US since the Iranian revolution in 1979 - all because of the hostages. Nobody's saying Iran is a beacon of stability and benevolence, far from it, but bombing them back to the Stone Age is not the solution to every problem. Didn't Iraq at least teach you that ?


User currently offlineMham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3719 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 1889 times:

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 11):
Gee, I didn't realize that we have an either/or choice here. This is often the rationale for justifying going to war. Limit choices, declare that diplomacy has failed, then commence with bombing.

So I asked the question, which you not-so-deftly avoided, WHAT WOULD YOU DO?


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10930 posts, RR: 37
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 1885 times:

An attack against Iran by the US will undoubtedly put the world in a very dangerous situation.
This is EVIL. No one has any idea of what consequences such an attack could have.

The whole of the muslim world will be revolted which will certainly lead to more terrorist attacks.
BinLadens multiplied by 10.

Israel and any other supporting countries will be put in great danger.

It really looks like the US Government is going to start preparing the general public for a new war albeit a most dangerous one. Don't they have enough with Iraq they want to look for more trouble?

An attack against Iran by the U.S. will be a HUGE MISTAKE. We don't have any idea what it can lead to. This is one they better think about. What have they got in their brains? Thin air? Why does the U.S. always choose war?
Weapons of mass destruction? Mon oeil!!! (my arse in English) Lies and more lies!!!

Where is there a proof that Iran wants to have nuclear energy for military purposes? If they let India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, why not Iran then?

Go seat around a table and talk. Peaceful arrangements can always be found.



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12593 posts, RR: 34
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 1864 times:

Unfortunately, although I do not agree with military action against Iran, I do see it happening. The current administration - particularly Cheney, who - let's face it - is far more politically savvy and machiavellian than Bush, has always been anxious to take Iran on. Of course, with Ahmedinejad being deliberately provocative, I don't have much sympathy for Iran or the mullahs. I'd like to see them out of power, but that's really a matter for the Iranian people; has this administration learned nothing? Saddam was a thug, no doubt, but they got rid of him and now, look? Do they think Iran will be all sweetness and light after a severe bombing? They may well do, but they'd be wrong.

Ultimately, the Iran issue is ONLY going to be solved by diplomacy; allowing gunboat diplomacy and hotheads to run things will only make the situation immeasurably worse, but at the end of the day, what does this administration have to lose? Respect? How much respect or international credibility does it have to lose? Not a lot and since they're going out of office, there will be those who will say, "let's do the job now and let the next administration clean it up".

It's ridiculous to say it can't be solved by diplomacy. Exactly how effective, determined or focused have American diplomatic efforts been, because if they amount to "do what we say or we'll bomb you", that is not exactly going to encourage co-operation. There may be a tendency to regard diplomacy as a box to be ticked on the checklist leading to the desired end, i.e. military action/regime change, with the result that it is done in a way guaranteed NOT to have positive results. It is far better that the negotiations be done in a way which recognises that Iran, for all its undoubted faults, has pride as a nation (just like any other) and will not respond to threats. It will respond much more positively to a respectful approach which attempts to understand and identify its genuine, bona fide interests and to address those.

Let's hope common sense wins through, although in my heart of hearts, I guess it is a pretty forlorn hope.


User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 1864 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 13):
Didn't Iraq at least teach you that ?

Please read what I said , I do not believe that a military strike is a good idea. However these fears I layout are not baseless and just paranoia. They are not a reason for a preemptive strike either ... but IMHO this may be the beginning of a more threatening future.

This is larger than Iran . This is about the rest of the world powers uniting to keep the world economies and societies in some basic cohesion. Why would China and Russia not condemn Iran's snubbing of the IAEA ? Why ? could it be that they are complicate in Iran's challenge of the US ? Could it be that they see the weakening of the US as a advantage to their economic power ? Using Iran as the thorn in the side to serve the purposes of our enemies long term goals,, out of the question ?



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 1842 times:

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 17):
Using Iran as the thorn in the side to serve the purposes of our enemies long term goals,, out of the question ?

And who then are there "enemies" ? Russia and China ? Does rivalry have to mean emnity ? The US and the EU are rivals, but not enemies. Russia and China both could constitute major threats to Europe and the US if they chose, but right now they don't choose. At least not in a military sense. China seems to have considerable monetary leverage over the US right now, why would they need Iran to create a distraction ? Everyone knows what's going in, this is the information age after all.


User currently offlineMham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3719 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 1839 times:

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 16):
Exactly how effective, determined or focused have American diplomatic efforts been, because if they amount to "do what we say or we'll bomb you", that is not exactly going to encourage co-operation.

The US diplomat who recently sat down with the Iranians testified before Congress three days ago. He stated that in his opinion, the Iranians seemed to be there only for the value of saying they were there, not to try to accomplish anything.


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10930 posts, RR: 37
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1814 times:

Ahmadinjihad is a clown or a makeover or whatever else you want to call him.
He is part ot the minority politically speaking. I doubt he will be re-elected.
He won't be around much longer. I am sure he will have to leave the job soon.

The mullahs are a different story.
Wasn't it what's his face Khomeiny who declared the US as being the "Great Satan"?

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 16):
with Ahmedinejad being deliberately provocative, I don't have much sympathy for Iran or the mullahs.

I am a free woman living in the Western World. I had to flight for women's rights and I do not like islam, believe me.
I have always been wary of religions.

Still I do not think this is a good enough reason to go and throw bombs on innocent people's heads just out of some politicians madness and whims whether they'd be W. Bush, Cheney, Sarközy, Ahmadinjihad or anybody else.

No war. Unless they want the whole world to go on fire.
There is great danger if the U.S. attacks Iran.
Diplomacy is the key.



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2039 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1810 times:

Quoting RJpieces (Thread starter):
Germany --- a pivotal player among three European nations to rein in Iran's nuclear program over the last two-and-a-half years through a mixture of diplomacy and sanctions supported by the United States --- notified its allies last week that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel refuses to support the imposition of any further sanctions against Iran that could be imposed by the U.N. Security Council.

I take it they have something to gain from Iran's nuclear program, or loose from further sanctions.

Quoting RJpieces (Thread starter):
Political and military officers, as well as weapons of mass destruction specialists at the State Department, are now advising Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the diplomatic approach favored by Burns has failed and the administration must actively prepare for military intervention of some kind.

Gee, where have we heard this before? Oh, thats right, the alleged gong show that resulted in the Iraq war.

Quoting RJpieces (Thread starter):
China is now obstructing them at the U.N. Security Council and the Russians are tucking themselves behind them.

Of course, their financial assets are far more important than collective security.  Yeah sure

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 7):
there is no nuclear WEAPONS program in Iran. Iran, and this has recently been clairfied by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, only has a nuclear development program for civilian purposes, for the use of nuclear energy for infrastructure projects and industrial projects.

And we should believe him because...

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 7):
the "problem" just is that Iran is not respecting the guidelines of the IAEA in Vienna and is not ready as it should to allow inspections by the IAEA specialists.

I wonder why?  liar 



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlineDC10extender From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 617 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1798 times:

Quoting Ajd1992 (Reply 4):
Don't complain when they retaliate with nuclear bombs and blow your ass off the map. I'm not anti-US, or Anti-Iran, but one day somebody will give the US a bloody nose, i have a feeling it will be Iran with their crackpot leader and very powerful weapons.

You don't know jack shit if you think that Iran will blow the U.S. off the map.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 7):
there is no nuclear WEAPONS program in Iran. Iran, and this has recently been clairfied by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, only has a nuclear development program for civilian purposes, for the use of nuclear energy for infrastructure projects and industrial projects.

How can you honestly believe that BS?

Quoting Sh0rtybr0wn (Reply 6):
Bombing another Islamic country will just create millions more people who hate America.

As long as we are a super power, people will hate us.



Did you ever read on your birth certificate that life is fair? Thats cause its not there.
User currently offlineHuskyAviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1153 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1796 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 15):
Where is there a proof that Iran wants to have nuclear energy for military purposes? If they let India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, why not Iran then?

First of all, we didn't "let" Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons. Pakistan swore up and down to the US that they weren't developing nuclear weapons, and Zia even gave Reagan his personal assurances. Read Reagan's newly released diaries. Of course, once it becomes public that a country has nuclear weapons, it's a little too late to do anything about it.


User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1787 times:

Quoting DC10extender (Reply 22):
As long as we are a super power, people will hate us.

There you go again. Nobody hates you, or hates your "freedoms". That is just a myth put about by the administration to keep Americans afraid. People sometimes get annoyed with you for invading places and supporting undemocratic regimes etc etc, but no sane person "hates" a country. Politics isn't about love or hate, it's about money and power. Just as war is diplomacy by other means, terrorism is politics by other means.


25 Toast : Ah, yes. Resorting to violence when you're out of arguments. How very mature, mister Bush. Or is it Cheney? Any proof of Iran building nuclear weapons
26 MadameConcorde : Why they did not look into Pakistan's hair lice as closely as they are doing for Iran right now? This is not a good enough reason for the U.S. to go a
27 Mt99 : Whatever.. there had never been a chance of that happening with GWB on board.
28 HuskyAviation : If US foreign policy is so diasastrously evil, as many of you claim on here, I'd like to know why you or your respective countries don't argue for th
29 NoUFO : What an idiotic article. All the federal government said was: "Before we impose new sanctions, let's wait for the upcoming IAE0 report on Iran which i
30 Toast : They very likely have such ambitions. So what? Russia has nukes, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel. Since when is it these countries' birthright to have
31 AGM100 : Of course this is a valid question , and one in my mind that adds to the mystery. Why does China ,EU ,Russia,sit silent then ? Why not condemn Akmeni
32 MBMBOS : Man, you're so cutting with that "not-so-deftly" comment! Wow, you really burned me! First of all, it is not incumbent on me to answer the question -
33 JGPH1A : But is this such a huge problem that drastic action is actually required ? Iran gets the bomb - join the club. Pakistan and India have the bomb, and
34 Post contains images MadameConcorde : I did not vote for Sarközy so I do not see why I should be held responsible for anything he will be doing. He and W. Bush look very much the same to
35 Sh0rtybr0wn : I understand that idea, people do seem to dislike America being the superpower, but don't you remember just after 911 how the whole world was on our
36 Post contains images Toast : For Bush, anything can be a provocation. Oh, the USA will eventually get its good name back, just like Germany and Japan did after WWII. The only que
37 JGPH1A : Excuse me while I fall off my chair laughing. Stabilizing ? Are you kidding me ? The US will be a stabilizing force when it stops propping up undemoc
38 HuskyAviation : Well, you tell me. Do you want Iran waving nuclear weapons around given the instability of the Middle East (even before the Iraq debacle). Why do you
39 LAXspotter : people who have been filled with all the BS the media and the government feeds them keep on thinking that way. Regardless if Iran has Nuclear weapons
40 JGPH1A : No I don't, but it is extremely hypocritical of countries like France and UK, who have nuclear arsenals, to lay down the law to countries doing exact
41 Post contains images LAXspotter : Been to these countries where supposedly hatred for the US is high and lemme tell you something, it has almost nothing to do with our freedoms, or us
42 LAXspotter : Exactly, lets take for Example a really right-wing Israeli politican who comes along, and he wants to create a greater Israel, whats stopping him fro
43 Post contains images Scbriml : Do only American deaths count? You mean like they did in Iraq?
44 AGM100 : I hope you are right about that , I really do. I really am in one damn dark mood today , unusual for me .... I like your view of the JGPH, Live and l
45 Post contains images Springbok747 : Great...wonder when our troops will be called.. Actually Pakistan is far more unstable than India. The Indians are way to responsible to start throwin
46 JGPH1A : It happens to everyone - sometimes the world just seems like it's going all to hell. Oh, I am deeply and abidingly cyncical about anything remotely p
47 HuskyAviation : The US has consistently tried to stop nuclear proliferation even with "friendly" nations. Israel hid their actual intentions at its Dimona nuclear fa
48 NoUFO : Wait a second. Who did the negotiations with Iran lately, the three main EU member countries or the U.S.? And could you please remind me of the reaso
49 JGPH1A : That's just as hypocritical - "friendly" or not, nuclear proliferation is a Bad Idea, and that means for the "responsible" countries too. Threatening
50 LTBEWR : If the USA really wanted to deal with the Middle East a-holes, we should suspend buying any oil from that region - including from Saudi Arabia - ratio
51 HuskyAviation : My point is that if the EU is going to get involved to find a resolution to this issue, and if the diplomatic effort fails, then what? The EU no long
52 NoUFO : And what if war would likely not provide a solution but rather increase the problem? I don't belive war is always the continuation of diplomacy by ot
53 RJpieces : Exactly why sanctions are important, and why Germany ruling out further sanctions is effectively ending the diplomatic route of dealing with Iran. Th
54 HuskyAviation : If you read my post, I said tougher sanctions. There are other avenues than war. But the EU must back up with something stronger than just rhetoric a
55 Post contains images Toast : Yes, the old proven method of "sanctions". Works brilliantly. That unfortunately doesn't surprise anyone anymore. Can't get what you want? Won't acce
56 Charles79 : Somehow I find this all very hard to believe. I know that there are certain Bush aides that are trigger-happy, and the VP does not inspire confidence
57 AGM100 : Direct bilats with the US puts us on a diplomatic Island , if they break down its our fault. No way should we go direct with Iran unless they basical
58 Post contains images Toast : That's what everyone thought before Iraq. Already engaged in Afghanistan, Saddam obviously no direct threat, too many risks.
59 LAXspotter : I dunno, but they both hate each others guts. But youre right, Iran is not going to be Iraq, its gonna be WORSE.
60 Sh0rtybr0wn : No,of course not. I knew somebody would say that. And sadly, the cost of the war on the Iraqis goes totally undiscussed by the USA media. The real sh
61 Gunsontheroof : Bullshit. Take to the streets. Stop business as usual. Get pissed off. Anybody that cares about peace and stability in the Middle East and the world
62 NoUFO : I said "two months", because this is when the IAEA issue their new report on Iran. Two months to wait for the U.S. administration. That's hardly a de
63 Falcon84 : Cheny is so fucking paranoid he'd bomb his hometown if someone said they were a danger. This guys is just, flat-out, a war-monger, nothing else. The
64 Toast : Each dot represents an American soldier killed in Iraq: .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ......
65 HuskyAviation : If the Germans for instance say "we will not tolerate Iran's development of nuclear weapons", in my opinion it is mere rhetoric if Iran fails to obey
66 Post contains links Springbok747 : India has a nuclear "no-first-use" policy. So they will only launch if Pakistan attacks first. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuke/index.html
67 LAXspotter : does anyone know the effects of Nuclear weapons, what will it wipe out, how much can it destroy?
68 Toast : The victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki know very well. And those two bombs were firecrackers compared to what the US has in stock today. Suffice to sa
69 AGM100 : My comment was related to a war with Iran. It is not the Liberals fault completely that we are a nation divided. It also not the fault of the conserv
70 Toast : How about a complete consensus in the world as well?
71 HuskyAviation : The world being who?
72 Baroque : Reliable usually means "they agree with me". I can get equally reliable information down at the local shopping centre! If China was hell bent on misc
73 Toast : The United Nations.
74 L-188 : Want them, Yes and building more, Israel. Agreed, but it would be hard to argue that Iran wasn't developing weapons afterward. That is pretty much my
75 Toast : Yeah, most Iraqis were killed by other Iraqis, not US soldiers. They'd all still be alive if Bush kept his insane war to himself. Bush, and the peopl
76 L-188 : Yes, and most of them had pretty good reasons for getting the hell out of Iran.
77 Baroque : With all sincerity, please tell me what THIS communist country is. Not Stalinist Russia, not Mao China, not a country set up according to Marxist pri
78 L-188 : Modern Mainland China is still commie, they might be trying to gain the benefits of a market economy (and not doing a half-bad job of it), but it is
79 LAXspotter : Carl Marx wouldnt call it communism and Adam Smith sure as hell would not call America the epitome of Capitalim, infact there are no countries that f
80 BN747 : There's a reason for that..it didn't just 'get' divided.. how do you think it started? Or does it not matter? Not a chance.. I said this about Iraq b
81 ME AVN FAN : - "WE" , whomever this may be, should not believe anybody making unproven statements but pressurize them into a more co-operative stance. With "press
82 Baroque : LAX got most of it. Marx would disown it completely. Stalin would be shocked. Mao would totter off into the afterlife - if he had not already done so
83 AGM100 : It is a valid point , but the "world" as a general rule are only worried about their own back yards. Some say that this is how we should be , maybe t
84 NoUFO : What means, other than sanctions, do we have to stop Iran from developing nukes? I'm not convinced an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities will actual
85 Post contains links HuskyAviation : I love how you say this so definitively as if you've inspected the facilities yourself. The fact is that the IAEA has stated that they cannot verify
86 YOWza : Wow. I've read your opening post 3 times and I still can't believe what I'm reading. I wish you were in the majority amongst your compatriots. If you
87 Baroque : And the more he/Iran is threatened, the safer he becomes. Conversely, if left alone, he is quite likely to implode. But what was the question. Probab
88 HuskyAviation : If the IAEA goes in there and is satisfied that their ambitions are peaceful, then I'm fine with that. I'm skeptical given the posturing over the las
89 ME AVN FAN : - The REAL fact is that neither YOU nor your national government can give real proof or evidence about a program for nuclear WEAPONS. It simply is as
90 Baroque : Almost certainly not the question they are asked to answer. The question will be available somewhere as the TORs must be available. In relation to th
91 AGM100 : If that is how you look at it then so be it. Since when did freedom become a exclusive idea of the administration ... ? would you prefer if they supp
92 Post contains images Toast : Sure, I'd like to see some change over there. I'd also like it not to rain in August. I'd like all religious nuts, cockroaches, mosquitoes and bimbo
93 AGM100 : I laid out my ideas pretty plainly , do you have any or are you just a dissenter for dissents sake. What should the west do with Iran ? I do not supp
94 Post contains links CALTECH : Really ? near the Afghan border. (Xinhua/Reuters) Up to 10,000 people reportedly protested at rallies in the largest city, Karachi. Many chanted: "De
95 Toast : Establish normal relations, boost trade, encourage travel. The average Iranian feels no hatred. The average Iranian watches the Simpsons and drinks C
96 Toast : And you judge 70 million people by that. So don't be surprised when other nations judge the US based on what they see on TV: "God Bless America" in e
97 ME AVN FAN : - whatever, what does the Afghan border have to do with Karachi ????? - Why then do they listen ? Do US-Americans now understand Farsi and Urdu ? - a
98 Post contains links CALTECH : http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm And all your european diplomacy killed some 50-60 million dead in WW2, that great peace treaty of Versai
99 EA CO AS : They do not currently have nuclear weapons or a delivery system capable of reaching the U.S.
100 ME AVN FAN : - A) the point is that you take their having a MILITARY nuclear program as a given, while this in reality just is an allegation B) the Iranians with
101 AGM100 : I like this idea ,, but how ? They make no gestures of wanting a peacful relation with us. ?
102 CALTECH : Why not open up the program then? Comply with the great and glorious U.N. resolutions and show they have no weapons ? So look what happened to saddam
103 ME AVN FAN : - Quite to the contrary, airline-companies in Iran would love to buy Boeing airplanes, many many Iranian companies would love to buy US-American prod
104 Post contains images Toast : 1. Elect the right person in 2008. 2. Go to the Iranian consulate, apply for a visa, spend your holiday there. Come back and encourage everyone to do
105 AGM100 : So we lift the embargo and suddenly free trade without interference from the mullahs starts rolling. I like the idea MAF , its obvious that the cold
106 Post contains images JGPH1A : Erm, technically Airbus and Fokker are infidels too
107 Lewis : During my last year of studies, I worked with Muslim students from various places, including Iran and Pakistan. If you compare the two, the Iranians
108 BN747 : As someone said to you above//do you even listen to yourself? If anything, that was the one moment the country was united...regardless who did it. An
109 BN747 : As someone said to you above//do you even listen to yourself? If anything, that was the one moment the country was united...regardless who did it. An
110 AGM100 : I was referring to your tin hat thread about the President ordering 911 attacks. If you believe that then like I said ... we will never have any comm
111 CALTECH : America will, just like it did in 2004, 2000,.....maybe not in 1976, but that would be another thread,.......
112 Lewis : From what I know by talking to Iranians Not at all. Although Iranians know Ahmadinejad is just a fool and pay no attention to his clown behaviour, the
113 Sh0rtybr0wn : America Elected Al Gore in 2000, winner of popular vote. . Supreme Court stopped the Florida recount and declared Bush winner.
114 Post contains images Flighty : I agree. I think Iran is making nuclear weapons using the available information. But the fact that Bush and Cheney say so too leads me to believe tha
115 HuskyAviation : Winning the national popular vote means nothing in US presidential elections.
116 AirTranTUS : It does in a way. If you win the popular vote of a state, you get that state's electoral votes (except for a few states who split it). Bush won the p
117 CALTECH : Wrong again, Al Gore couldn't even BS his home state to win. Electoral College picked the winner. All the major Florida newspapers showed that in eve
118 Avek00 : A conflict against Iran would, with even modest intelligent planning, go 10 times more smoothly than the conflict in Iraq, for one simple reason -- as
119 Arrow : Right, they'll greet the US troops with open arms and baskets of flowers. Where have I heard that before? Why do (some) Americans think the rest of t
120 CALTECH : It is not as a failure, it is his job performance. I also do not approve of Bushs' performance. He let the republicans wander, spend money like democ
121 AGM100 : I would agree I guess , I dont know .. for all I know they all love their leadership. Why should we think otherwise ? Their seems to be no motivation
122 Avek00 : I absolutely never said or even implied that -- in fact, having US soliders on every street corners would only result in bloodshot. If you looked at
123 TheCol : Man, I can't believe none of you see the bigger picture here. The Iranian regime isn't stupid. They know if they are able to build nuclear weapons, th
124 Yellowstone : IIRC, he was complying with the resolutions just prior to the war, just more slowly and reluctantly than the US preferred. Yes, we do know how the el
125 CALTECH : Wrong, he was doing everything he could to not comply. He even bought off one, Ritter wasn't it. Sure. A problem in democrat run counties, can't help
126 Post contains images Yellowstone : Ever actually seen a picture of the infamous butterfly ballot? Not impossible to understand, but more confusing than a ballot should be. Not exactly.
127 CALTECH : Arrows pointing to dots, That's really hard to figure out. Find who you want. Follow arrow, punch dot. Sad. Your own words, partially complied. That
128 DeltaDC9 : Israel, who we are obligated to defend. But we will not attack Iran, we will innitiate a cold war, of which a public attack plan it the first step. T
129 ME AVN FAN : Syria got nukes ? Any proof ? Any substantial evidence ? Or just some rumours ranging from a weapons convoy from Iran via Turkey and Syria to Lebanon
130 CALTECH : Rumors. Pretty bold for Israel to strike sites inside Syria and risk war. With a president who calls for the end of Israel, Iran just might need to b
131 Post contains links ME AVN FAN : the Iranians buy Russian and Ukrainian civil and military airplanes, and Russians and Ukrainians are NOT Muslims either. And Iran Air is still using
132 CALTECH : Not amazing at all, it has happened before. You do not know what happened in Florida, as a certain Dan Rather tried to influence the Florida vote, an
133 DeltaDC9 : Nothing amazing about it, it has happened before 2000 and it will happen again. If we did not have the EC 10 states would decide the presidency every
134 ME AVN FAN : I do. It is very similar to the system in Switzerland, for instance that in votes, a numerical majority is zero, if it is a minority by number of can
135 CALTECH : Not amazing at all, just odd. Just as a president making it into office with only 43% of the popular vote. Just peculiar. What is amazing is how some
136 Post contains images DeltaDC9 : OK, I think I was being oversensitive.....sorry. That pesky Castro sure is popular! They must really love the guy down there.... I always wonder what
137 David L : It can happen in this country, too, and has happened in the past. The idea was to prevent weak governments where the leading party gets 30.0% of the
138 Post contains links CALTECH : What is going on here? Ottoman Turks still have not forgiven Arabs? http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...ename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull The rhet
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Chavez To Unveil Plan For Indefinite Presidency posted Thu Aug 16 2007 04:29:06 by MaverickM11
Ahmadinejad "Doubts" Iran Armed Taliban. posted Tue Aug 14 2007 18:45:01 by Cumulonimbus
My Plan For Southern U.S Rail Travel posted Mon Aug 6 2007 20:21:42 by MSYtristar
Tancredo's Terror Retaliation Plan: Bomb Mecca. posted Fri Aug 3 2007 21:53:43 by LHMARK
Would You Go To Iran? posted Fri Jul 20 2007 06:21:59 by Speedbird747BA
3rd Carrier To Frighten Iran/ Try To Force War posted Wed Jul 11 2007 05:16:05 by MDorBust
Plan 9 From Outer Space posted Mon Jul 9 2007 03:08:19 by Allstarflyer
Iran Joins The 24hr News World posted Mon Jul 2 2007 14:20:20 by Oly720man
Off To Euroland Tomorrow With No Plan posted Wed Jun 27 2007 20:44:05 by LHMARK
Iran To Privatize Banks posted Tue Jun 26 2007 20:25:06 by Texan